Federally Enforcing Right to Life

Euthanasia is currently legal in Oregon because citizens there have approved physician-assisted suicide in two separate referendums. But is illegal under federal law for doctors to abuse the prescription power by distributing drugs for illegitimate, non-medical purposes.

United States Attorney General John Ashcroft has challenged the legality of the dispensation in Oregon of lethal drugs, saying it was not a legitimate medical practice. In particular, he issued a directive, by his authority as chief law enforcement officer of the United States, faithfully executing the Controlled Substances Act by preventing doctors from issuing lethal prescriptions.

Last week, the federal government's attempt to enforce this law against the manifestly non-medical purpose of killing people was rejected by federal court in Oregon. It is an occasion to recall both the fundamental evil of euthanasia, and the stake America has in ending this immoral and unethical practice in Oregon.

The Declaration of Independence states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator – not by human choice – with certain unalienable rights, foremost among which is the right to life. If the Declaration of Independence states our national creed, there can be no right to take any innocent human life, not even one's own, for this is to deny the most fundamental right of all.

The right to life is unalienable. That means we may not justly trade it away for some perceived improvement in our material condition, as we might sell the title deed to our house or car. If we kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our life. We act unjustly. We usurp the authority that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.

If human beings can decide whose life deserves protection and whose does not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly corrupted. Euthanasia treats the right to life as though it were dependent on human choice, rather than on the Creator's eternal will. That is why euthanasia is always the unjust taking of a human life and a breach of the fundamental principles of our public moral creed.

By our American creed, therefore, physician-assisted suicide such as is currently legal in Oregon is a violation of the very foundation of all our civil rights.

In judging the actions of the United States attorney general, we must keep this fact clearly in mind. There can be no question on which the attorney general of the republic has a more solemn obligation to act with principled energy than on the Declaration issue of the unalienable right of the innocent to life itself. The Constitution, and all federal law, has the single and unifying purpose of constituting a federal regime of ordered liberty by which the people, in their God-given equality, govern themselves in dignity and justice.

The Controlled Substances Act prohibits physician dispensation of drugs for medically illegitimate purposes. It is a federal law, which means that its execution in the lives of the citizens of the nation is the responsibility of the federal government. Attorney General Ashcroft bears the weight of that responsibility and has rightly made the judgment that physicians cannot dispense federally controlled substances in order to end the lives of patients.

Can the voters of the state of Oregon decide for the federal government that killing people is a medically acceptable purpose?

The attorney general and the state of Oregon cannot simply agree to disagree on the matter. The attorney general has a federal law and a solemn duty to enforce it. That means that he, on behalf of the sovereign federal power, must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate medical uses of controlled substances.

In the current situation, a physician who is dispensing a lethal dose to his "patient" may say, "I am using this controlled substance in a way that conforms with the proper understanding of medical practice." Attorney General Ashcroft can point to common sense, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and disagree, saying, "Killing your patient is fundamentally opposed to the proper understanding of medical practice, because it is a profound injustice." The physician then points to the Oregon state euthanasia law, passed by the people of that state, and repeats that what he is doing is medically legitimate, according to the people of Oregon.

The question we face is whether the attorney general of the United States should form his understanding of the meaning of federal law, on a question bearing on the life or death of innocent citizens, by consulting the first principles of reason and American political justice, or by deferring to state referenda.

The legal question is clear enough. The interpretation of federal law cannot be dictated by state authorities. The interpretation of federal law is the business of the federal government, and the people who are competent to overrule federal authorities on such questions are the people of the whole nation, not of one state.

But euthanasia is no ordinary legal question. It goes to the heart of the nature and purpose of legitimate self-government. The State of Oregon is attempting to dictate to officers of the federal government an interpretation of federal law that violates the most basic natural – and hence most essential civil – right of all: the right to life. The state of Oregon is insisting, to speak plainly, on federal acceptance of the establishment of a new "peculiar institution."

But the original "peculiar institution," slavery, had already taken illegitimate root at the time of our national founding, and a painful prudence dictated that it be temporarily accepted lest the good of self-government itself should prove impossible. Oregon's new "peculiar institution" is a new cancer threatening the well being of the nation. Attorney General Ashcroft is right to refuse to yield the national conscience to this morbid revival of the right of states to repudiate the Declaration principle of human equality.

Once we go down the road of euthanasia, it can eventually get so far out of control that some will wonder what happened. Those advocating euthanasia may one day be put to death because a relative is impatient for his or her inheritance. After all, a relative might say during the fight against cancer, some disease, or an accident, "Dad's suffering........Just let him go."

Maybe Dad wants to fight for his life, but he can't speak for himself at that moment. Playing God can be very dangerous.

Once we go down the road of euthanasia, it can eventually get so far out of control that some will wonder what happened.

I respect your point of view. I myself have mixed feelings about the morality and wisdom of assisted suicide.

My only point is that I am troubled by the suggestion that the Declaration of Independence has either irrevocably decided the issue for us or that the Declaration of Independence requires that the issue be decided by the Federal Government. I would prefer that we continue to determine the appropriate powers of the Federal Government with reference to the provisions of the Constitution (rather than the Declaration of Independence) and I would prefer that matters such as the boundaries of homicide laws and medical practice standards continue to be decided by state governments. I am even prepared to accept the notion that the Federal Government (acting through the United States Government) might have the constitutional authority to ban assisted suicide on a national basis.

But wouldn't it be more in keeping with our civic traditions that these issues be decided by the voters of a state (as in this case) or by legislatures (whether state or Federal) than by the Attorney General?

The FDA was formed to set interstate commerce standards for pure food & drugs.

-- Not to enforce federal laws regulating their uses. - Thus. -- There is no provision in the Constitution to allow the Federal Government to exercise authority over drug usage or medical procedures, --- is a true statement.

"traditional state's authority" according to Michael Greve, the John G. Searle Scholar and director of the Federalism Project at the American Enterprise Institute, "doesn't answer the federalism question — ever." Just because Congress didn't regulate an area in the past, "doesn't mean they couldn't ever do it. The real question," he says, "is does Congress have the authority, yes or no, under the Commerce Clause." It has long been clear that medical practice impacts interstate commerce and therefore may be regulated by the federal government (as the Controlled Substances Act already does in part)

If you do not like ad hominem attacks, do not initiate them. As many here can tell you, I am a past master at this science, and probably can make things more unpleasant for you than you can for me, if that is the way you want to go.

Let's see... I questioned your motives and you responded by calling me a killer. Who started the ad hominem?

As far as your threats go, shove them up far and tight.

I'm on the verge of reversing myself and wishing you the experience up close and personal of having someone longing for release from pain and degredation so that you can look them in they eye with with your arrogance and tell them that life's tough for us all and that they just need to ride it out or some other such crap.

Maybe one day you will be faces with the choice between the pain of the disease that cannot be beaten by man's medicine and the pain of the treatments that make you dread being conscious. Maybe you will be faced ailments that disgust even those that treat you and embarrass you because you cannot even clean yourself. You will have the knowlege that your family will never ever let you shorten your miserable, wretched life by a second, that you will be a disgusting pile of oozing, stinking, rotting flesh that can only move its eyes and whisper groans due to the pain that wracks your body with every breath and every beat of your heart.

If you ever get to the point where you cannot stand the thought of another minute of life, I hope there's someone there to deny you the ability to control your own demise. Out of love, of course.

I still can't understand why someone who really wants to kill themself needs a prescription specifically for that purpose.

I don't know much about the details of exactly how these assisted suicides are performed, but Ashcroft apparently felt that a lot of them could be eliminated by prohibiting the use of "scheduled" drugs. I am also relatively ignorant about the details concerning why some people need assistance with their suicides. Presumably, there exists some sort of coincidence involving profound physical incapacity, extreme discomfort, a hopeless prognosis and the desire to quit living.

I reject the constitutional premise that you and your 'authority' are operating under. Why do you WANT to give the feds these powers over doctors & drugs?
Its bad enough that we give our states far too much power over these types of personal decisions, imo.

Can you explain your position?

I would join you on stopping most improper federal intrusions on states rights. Just not a states rights position that fosters a culture of death. I'd rather start focus on rolling back federal involvment in education.

I would add that the Right to Life includes the Right to end his/her own life in dignity. Everyone has that right.

It's called suicide,leave the medical profession out of it.

Oath of Hippocrates

"Above All, Do No Harm"

I will not give a fatal draught (drugs) to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing. Neither will I give a woman means to procure an abortion.

I don't think that you can find one who has ever suggested that it would be appropriate to use the Declaration of Independence to determine the scope of Federal power in our federal system.

The Declaration of Independence has been cited many times by the Supreme Court, including both sides of Dred Scott, Amistad, and a host of others. Having answered that objection, I should make clear my position that what the Supreme Court rules is less important than what the Constitution is and the expressed principles of just government are. Our government is comprised of three branches and many parts, up to and including the people themselves, not just the Supreme Court. The federal government shouldn't get involved as far as I'm concerned unless the states aren't adequately doing their jobs by protecting life as it should. It is clear that Oregon qualifies. My favorite part is, "The citizens of Oregon, through their democratic initiative process, have chosen to resolve the moral, legal and ethical debate on physician-assisted suicide for themselves by voting -- not once, but twice -- in favor of the Oregon act," as if moral truths can be decided by a democratic vote. Moral truths are moral truths, completely independent of tyranny of the majority. If moral truths could be decided by a referendum, surely the confederacy should have been allowed to continue with slavery.

As for what authority Ashcroft has, he has the authority and the duty to enforce federal laws such as the Controlled Substance Act and the Constitution. Whether or not the Controlled Substance Act is constitutional is subject to debate, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the Constitution isn't.

In order for Congress to pass any law they are supposed to site where in the Constitution they find authority; neither the fifth nor the fourteenth gives the Federal Government such authority.

Here as you requested, in addition to the 5th and 14th amendments, is the authority the federal goverment needs. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

First, as I pointed out in an earlier post, phrases from the Declaration of Independence are often used to buttress constitutional arguments that are grounded in constitutional provisions. So are quotations from the Federalist papers, and even the Bible. But that is a much different thing than attempting to use the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist papers or the Bible as a substitute for reliance upon the text of the Constitution itself. So, while it is not unusual to find courts quoting from the Declaration of Independence, it would be very unusual (read unheard of) for a court to look to the Declaration of Independence for a description of the powers that have been constitutionally allocated to the U.S. Government.

Second, I think think that you may find greater support than you think for the notion that "moral truths" have a role to play in government and law. Any disappointments that you may have might be attributable to our occasional inability to gain universal acceptance of what is or is not a moral truth. On such occasions, we need to find a mechanism to resolve our differences and democracy is just one of the possible mechanisms. But, to be sure, democracy is not for everyone.

Finally, the court in this case did not have to reach the question of the constitutionality of this attempted application of the Controlled Substances Act because the court found that the CSA did not, as Ashcroft was contending, have any application to Oregon's assisted suicide law. In other words, it suggested that if Ashcroft wanted to utitlize the CSA to interfere with Oregon's assisted suicide law, the CSA would first have to be amended by Congress.

Can you explain your position?

I would join you on stopping most improper federal intrusions on states rights. Just not a states rights position that fosters a culture of death.

No one is fostering such a 'culture'. Such hypebole should embarrass you. -- This Oregon law is not engraved in stone. If abuses are found, the law can be changed. -- By the people of Oregon, not by Federal bureaucrats.

I'd rather start focus on rolling back federal involvment in education.

Whatever. Dream on.

The state only decides whether or not you have legal capacity to enter a contract.

They only decide this when there is reason to think otherwise, such as when the person wishes to take his own life. There would be no other reason for having such a hearing, and therefore the decision they come to will be whether or not the person has the legal capacity to enter a contract to allow another to kill him, and whether the state will be an accomplice to that by withholding prosecution for the deliberate taking of innocent human life.

If a person is dead set on having a contract to do it and is incapable of doing it himself, he is free to enter into one without the knowledge of the state. The hitman can be expected to be tried for it in front of a jury of his peers, lest the state be an accomplice in such transactions by intentionally failing to uphold its just laws against murder, but only the truly serious will do such a thing, with or without the mental capacity under any court to legally enter into a contract.

or you think that such enabling language is a blank check to pass any type of unrelated law.

Let's see... How do I say this without being offensive? The fifth and fourteenth amendments couldn't possibly be any more related to protecting against murder. An elementary grammatical analysis couldn't make it more clear.

Amendment V
No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Article I, Section 8.
"The Congress shall have Power...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution...all...Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

If we cannot agree on plain language and definitions, on what can we agree?

As to the first point, I believe that is precisely the case Keyes is making here, and the case for which we should all stand. The duties of government are clear, and one of those is to protect the lives of the innocent. As to your final point, as Dr. Keyes says referring to the Controlled Substance Act, "The legal question is clear enough. The interpretation of federal law cannot be dictated by state authorities. The interpretation of federal law is the business of the federal government, and the people who are competent to overrule federal authorities on such questions are the people of the whole nation, not of one state."

If you're looking for a specific statute, there it is.

The Controlled Substances Act prohibits physician dispensation of drugs for medically illegitimate purposes. It is a federal law, which means that its execution in the lives of the citizens of the nation is the responsibility of the federal government. Attorney General Ashcroft bears the weight of that responsibility and has rightly made the judgment that physicians cannot dispense federally controlled substances in order to end the lives of patients.

The wording of the statute implies that there must be some judgement taking place. For who is to decide what is or is not legitimate? Congress could do it, but didn't. If they did, unless they frame it in such a way that it is consistent with the just principles of good government, they are in effect usurping the authority of the Creator. That is at least partially how the Declaration is valuable to us, and it is the wisdom of the Declaration that Dr. Keyes reflects on to demonstrate how Mr. Ashcroft's decision was just and good.

Coupled with the authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution (and its duty according to the Declaration) to protect, if necessary and proper, innocent human lives, Atty. Gen. Ashcroft has all the authority he needs. This federal court blew it. I hope the Attorney General and the President continue to pursue it, and that they call on both the Constitution, federal laws, and the Declaration to justify their actions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.